I just can't seem to locate the letter from the DOJ/ATF, that someone posted, that states that it is not illegal to cheek weld an AR pistol, and it is not illegal to install a CAA saddle/battery compartment onto your pistol buffer tube.

Can someone please repost a copy of it.

thanks in advance!

kenjimatic

05-04-2012, 12:31 AM

Google is your friend.. ;)

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=475775

Yugo

05-04-2012, 12:35 AM

awesome, cause I just ordered one for a pistol.... :D

mmrx2

05-04-2012, 6:19 AM

This letter in no good with the doj.

CSACANNONEER

05-04-2012, 6:29 AM

This letter in no good with the doj.

Speculation or based on facts? Can you cite your source?

PolishMike

05-04-2012, 6:38 AM

Speculation or based on facts? Can you cite your source?

What he means is the letter will work with an ATF interaction but CA DOJ has its own SBR laws and interpretations that may or may not be in line with this letter.

the big ravioli

05-04-2012, 6:50 AM

This letter in no good with the doj.

Seems to me your not on target & you pulled the trigger to soon!! Do you have a link or some form of proof of your quote?

Cyc Wid It

05-04-2012, 3:03 PM

Seems to me your not on target & you pulled the trigger to soon!! Do you have a link or some form of proof of your quote?

See post above yours. ATF and CA DOJ don't always see things the same way.

the big ravioli

05-04-2012, 7:42 PM

See post above yours. ATF and CA DOJ don't always see things the same way.

I stand by my post.... "Do you have a link or some form of proof of your quote?"

Dark Sky Solutions

05-04-2012, 7:49 PM

Interested in this side saddle option as well. I know that I can build a AOW with a forward grip if it is over 26" in length. Can I also add the side saddle battery compartment to this same weapon?

We shall see

BANG BANG

05-04-2012, 10:46 PM

So are we saying this is in a gray area?

Quiet

05-04-2012, 11:31 PM

Interested in this side saddle option as well. I know that I can build a AOW with a forward grip if it is over 26" in length. Can I also add the side saddle battery compartment to this same weapon?

We shall see

If the firearm has an OAL of greater than 26", than it is not an AOW. It it a Title 1 long gun. As a Title 1 long gun, it can legally have a forward vertical grip on it because it is not a Title 1 handgun.

Grumpyoldretiredcop

05-05-2012, 12:21 AM

I stand by my post.... "Do you have a link or some form of proof of your quote?"

ATFE enforces Fed law and doesn't care (for the most part, absent some interaction with NFA/FFL law) about CA law.

CA DOJ enforces CA law, which does not always follow Fed law, as we all know too well. An ATFE letter carries little or no weight on the subject of this thread with CA DOJ.

The two agencies enforce two different, separate and distinct bodies of law. What other proof would you like to see? You'll not find that statement written anywhere that I know of, so good luck with that... I don't know how much more simply it can be explained to you.

Sir Stunna Lot

05-05-2012, 1:00 AM

to make things clearer:

the provided letter covers any legal interaction at the federal level with the Feds over at ATF (good enough proof/source)

CA DOJ has not released any opinion on this topic yet, there isnt any proof whether or not CA DOJ agrees or disagrees with the ATF letter... so proceed at your own risk

Jeepers

05-05-2012, 1:09 AM

to make things clearer:

the provided letter covers any legal interaction at the federal level with the Feds over at ATF (good enough proof/source)

CA DOJ has not released any opinion on this topic yet, there isnt any proof whether or not CA DOJ agrees or disagrees with the ATF letter... so proceed at your own risk

same can be said about "pistol to riffle to pistol conversions" legal per ATF federal , but not advised by the ppl who seem to know the ins and outs of CADOJ ... but the laws are "about" the same this state is so damn confusing ....lol

Sir Stunna Lot

05-22-2012, 11:09 AM

same can be said about "pistol to riffle to pistol conversions" legal per ATF federal , but not advised by the ppl who seem to know the ins and outs of CADOJ ... but the laws are "about" the same this state is so damn confusing ....lol

im on the "avoid the pistol-rifle-pistol" camp

Untamed1972

05-22-2012, 11:20 AM

I think the important point is that "holding the buffer tube to your cheek" is not firing it from the shoulder, nor is the pistol "designed to be fired from the shoulder". An AR pistol can be cheek welded without CAA saddle, so adding the saddle does not alter the operation from what is was without it. The saddle is not a buttstock, it does not make the gun "shoulder fired". Without a buttstock it is still just a pistol.

Is there a CA law on how far away from your face a pistol must be when fired?

Yes ATF and CA-DOJ work with different bodies of law.....what law or definition would Ca-DOJ use to classify the saddle as a buttstock, thus making it an SBR?

bohoki

05-22-2012, 2:29 PM

it is not intended to be fired from the shoulder

that doesn't mean it has to be impossible to fire from the shoulder

and as where you put your cheek that is completely irrelevant

unless you fire it between 2 now that would be down right abnormal

stix213

05-22-2012, 3:45 PM

I would avoid using the CAA saddle in CA. CA's separate SBR law has not been fully defined, and even though similar to federal it can be enforced differently (in the same way that OAL is legally written similar, but is practically much much different only because of CA specific case law). Remember if charged you are going to be tried by a CA anti-gun jury and/or anti-gun judge who doesn't know what a stock is. They only know what it looks like, and the CAA saddle looks like a stock.

Unless you enjoy being a test case and have the $$$ to burn, then go ahead and get this resolved for the rest of us.

tacticalcity

05-22-2012, 4:48 PM

ATFE enforces Fed law and doesn't care (for the most part, absent some interaction with NFA/FFL law) about CA law.

CA DOJ enforces CA law, which does not always follow Fed law, as we all know too well. An ATFE letter carries little or no weight on the subject of this thread with CA DOJ.

The two agencies enforce two different, separate and distinct bodies of law. What other proof would you like to see? You'll not find that statement written anywhere that I know of, so good luck with that... I don't know how much more simply it can be explained to you.

He is asking you to cite the CA Penal Code and highlight what portion of it applies to this particular issue.

You guys are not listening to each other and going round and round instead of actually answer the question. It is very annoying.

He is asking for specifics and you are offering vague generalizations. The fact that CA laws are different is known. The fact that the DOJ would actually have a problem with it has yet to be proven by you. So step up and cite your source already - and be very specific. Give not only the section of the code, but explain in detail how it applies to this specific situation. So far, no one has been able to do that in the 6 different threads I have read on this topic. If you are right, cool. But you have to back it up with the actual law. Just saying you are right 5000 times over and over again doesn't prove a damn thing.

My suspicion is DOJ is totally silent on the issue, and you guys are just speculating that CA would have a problem with it.

ke6guj

05-22-2012, 5:07 PM

how many times do we have to say that we don't know how CADOJ would look at that item on a pistol. there aren't any specifics that can be pointed to, either for, or against. Expecially when CADOJ won't put words to paper anymore. Pointing to an ATF letter and trying to use it as proof that it would be kosher in CA isn't a smart idea. We can bring up examples where CA has ruled differently than the feds in the past.

Unless you personally have the money to pay for bail and lawyer costs, it would be a smart idea to play it safe when the law is murky.

bohoki

05-22-2012, 5:51 PM

if there is no law against something it is legal its impossible to find laws that say things are legal

its like trying to prove aliens don't exist the burden is on the person saying they do to prove it

_w5JqQLqqTc

Grumpyoldretiredcop

05-23-2012, 11:56 AM

This letter in no good with the doj.

See post above yours. ATF and CA DOJ don't always see things the same way.

I stand by my post.... "Do you have a link or some form of proof of your quote?"

ATFE enforces Fed law and doesn't care (for the most part, absent some interaction with NFA/FFL law) about CA law.

CA DOJ enforces CA law, which does not always follow Fed law, as we all know too well. An ATFE letter carries little or no weight on the subject of this thread with CA DOJ.

The two agencies enforce two different, separate and distinct bodies of law. What other proof would you like to see? You'll not find that statement written anywhere that I know of, so good luck with that... I don't know how much more simply it can be explained to you.

He is asking you to cite the CA Penal Code and highlight what portion of it applies to this particular issue.

You guys are not listening to each other and going round and round instead of actually answer the question. It is very annoying.

He is asking for specifics and you are offering vague generalizations. The fact that CA laws are different is known. The fact that the DOJ would actually have a problem with it has yet to be proven by you. So step up and cite your source already - and be very specific. Give not only the section of the code, but explain in detail how it applies to this specific situation. So far, no one has been able to do that in the 6 different threads I have read on this topic. If you are right, cool. But you have to back it up with the actual law. Just saying you are right 5000 times over and over again doesn't prove a damn thing.

My suspicion is DOJ is totally silent on the issue, and you guys are just speculating that CA would have a problem with it.

tacticalcity, here's the actual train of posts (I've left out the double quotes for clarity). I do not think he was asking the question you thought he was asking, or alternatively, I do not think I was answering the question you thought I was answering.

I don't know why you decided to quote me as my post only addresses why an ATF letter carries no weight with CA DOJ. There's no code section that proves/disproves that statement; how can I quote what doesn't exist except as a basic principle of law? I did not address the question of whether or not DOJ would consider the CAA saddle to be a "buttstock" or not as DOJ has offered no opinion that I'm aware of and I'm not aware of any case law in which an agent of DOJ has testified to the matter.

zombiescanlearn

05-23-2012, 5:09 PM

ATFE enforces Fed law and doesn't care (for the most part, absent some interaction with NFA/FFL law) about CA law.

CA DOJ enforces CA law, which does not always follow Fed law, as we all know too well. An ATFE letter carries little or no weight on the subject of this thread with CA DOJ.

The two agencies enforce two different, separate and distinct bodies of law. What other proof would you like to see? You'll not find that statement written anywhere that I know of, so good luck with that... I don't know how much more simply it can be explained to you.

+1 what he just said.

Rocket Man

05-23-2012, 5:27 PM

I agree with stix, besides why would I want a cold plastic saddle when my Phase 5 buffertube foam is sooo comfy! :p

joash

05-23-2012, 5:40 PM

If there is no law against something, that doesn't mean that people will not try to adapt existing laws to fit new facts.

You will never find a section of the Code that says the CAA Saddle turns the buffer tube into a stock. What people are saying is, that it's a gray area and nobody wants to be the unlucky one to find out that it does.

if there is no law against something it is legal its impossible to find laws that say things are legal

its like trying to prove aliens don't exist the burden is on the person saying they do to prove it

_w5JqQLqqTc

wildhawker

05-23-2012, 5:51 PM

CA DOJ will not *ever* issue a legal opinion outside of briefing litigation and their trial experts.

They *will* let you be arrested so you can pay for experts and attorney to prove it's not an unlawful firearm (and/or illegally manufactured).

You should listen to ke6guj and PolishMike.

-Brandon

Capybara

05-23-2012, 7:38 PM

Even though a lot of people have these on their AR pistols, I wouldn't do it. I was told by somebody whose opinion I highly respect, "just don't." so I heeded their advice. It's like every other AR issue, anything could get you arrested. Chances are it would not stick but who wants to be the test case? Not me.